The Income-tax Officer, Hoshiarpur V. Sh. Jatinder Singh, Hoshiarpur

ITA 124/ASR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 12420914 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 26-08-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 04-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y K SAXENA
• Assessee Lawyers: K BHAGAT
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Business income; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value; Valuation report
• Section: 143(3); 50C; 142(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 124(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 PAN: AAXPK2531K INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. JATINDER KUMAR DASUYA L/H SH. RAM KUMAR, C/O- M/S BHARAT MOTOR, G.T. ROAD, MUKERIAN, DISTT. HOSHIARPUR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. Y.K. SAXENA, DR RESPONDENT BY: SH. K. BHAGAT, CA DATE OF HEARING: 26.08.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30.08.2013 ORDER PER BENCH 1) THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL A GAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.12.2012 PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A), JA LANDHAR, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: I. THAT, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION AM OUNTING TO RS. 15,31,025/- MADE BY THE A.O. II. THAT, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BE SET-ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER RESTORED. 2 I.T.A. NO. 124(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 III. THAT THE APPELLANT REQUESTS FOR LEAVE TO ADD OR AME ND OR ALTER THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS HEARD AND DI SPOSED OF. 2) THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE ARE T HAT THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 05.12.2006 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 75,236/- PLUS AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS. 28,700/- WH ICH WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (I N SHORT THE ACT). THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 143(2) DATED 29.10.2007. IN RESPONSE THERETO, LEGAL HEIR OF THE ASSESSEE INFORMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DIED ON 17.10.2007. THEREUPON, ASS ESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICES UNDER SECTION 143(2) AND 142(1) OF T HE ACT AND SERVED UPON LEGAL HEIR OF THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, SON OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI JATINDER KUMAR ALONGWITH HIS COUNSEL ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS AND FURNISHED INFORMATION AS SOUGHT FOR IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE AND PRODUCED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, INCLUDING VOUCHERS. BOOKS OF ACCOUNT PRODUCED WERE EXAMINED BY TEXT CHECK AND THE REPLIE S FURNISHED AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BY ASSESSEES COUNSEL WERE CONSIDE RED. THE ASSESSEE DERIVES INCOME FROM PURCHASE AND SALE OF SPARE PART S OF TRACTORS AND TEMPOS ON RETAIL BASIS. DURING THE YEAR, HE HAS SHO WN GROSS PROFIT OF RS. 82,876/- ON THE TOTAL SALES OF RS. 2,12,344/-. THIS GIVES GROSS PROFIT RATE AT 3 I.T.A. NO. 124(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 39% WHICH IS AGAINST THE GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 37% S HOWN LAST YEAR ON THE TOTAL SALES OF RS. 2,27,911/-. PURCHASE AND SALE BI LLS HAVE BEEN PRODUCED AND ON TEXT CHECK THESE ARE FOUND VOUCHED. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER WHILE EXAMINING VOUCHERS FOR EXPENSES CLAIMED IN THE PROF IT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED VOUCHERS F OR RS. 1000/- OUT OF GENERAL EXPENSES ACCOUNT. AFTER PERUSAL OF THE CAPI TAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THERE WA S AN ADDITION OF RS. 16 LAKHS, WHICH THE LEGAL HEIR OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ASK ED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE SAID SUM OF RS. 16 LACS. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, THE LEGAL HEIR OF THE ASSESSEE INFORMED THAT HIS FATHER SHRI RAM KUMA R HAD SOLD 160 MARLA URBAN ANCESTRAL AGRICULTURAL LAND SITUATED IN VILLA GE FATTOWAL, MUKERIAN FOR A SUM OF RS. 16 LACS ON 31.03.2006 WHICH WAS A CQUIRED IN 1980 FOR RS. 46,666/- AND THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN WAS DEP OSITED IN BONDS. THEREUPON, ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE LEGAL HEIR O F THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH COPIES OF PURCHASE/SALE DEEDS OF THE IMPUGN ED LAND AND COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN ARISING ON THE SALE THE REOF. IN COMPLIANCE, HE FURNISHED THE COPIES OF THE PURCHASE/SALE DEED WHIC H SHOWS THAT THE TEHSILDAR, MUKERIAN HAD CHARGED STAMP DUTY ON THE T OTAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 31,62,000/- AS AGAINST SALE CO NSIDERATION MENTIONED IN THE BODY OF THE SAID PURCHASE/SALE DEED AT RS. 1 6 LAKHS. ASSESSING 4 I.T.A. NO. 124(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO REPLY THAT HIS FATHER HAS SOLD 160 MARLA LAND SITUATED IN MUKERIAN FOR RS. 31,62,000/- (AMOUNT ON WHICH STAMP DUTY HAS BEEN CHARGED) THOUGH SALE CONSIDERATION MENTION ED IN THE BODY OF THE REGISTRATION DEED IS RS. 16 LAKHS AND AS THE IMPUGN ED LAND WAS ANCESTRAL LAND ITS COST OF ACQUISITION HAS TO BE TAKEN AS ON 01.04.1981. IN RESPONSE THERETO, THE LEGAL HEIR OF THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS R EPLY AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE, THE COST OF ACQUISITIO N WAS TAKEN AT RS. 2,17,500 INDEXED TO 10,80,975/- BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER AND HE CALCULATED THE CAPITAL GAINS AT RS. 20,81,025. THE ASSESSING OFFICE AFTER ALLOWING AN AMOUNT OF RS. 5,50,000/- UNDER SECTION 54EA OF THE ACT, ASSESSED THE NET CAPITAL GAINS AT RS. 15,31,025/- A ND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON 14.08.2008 UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF TH E ACT. 3) BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 14 .08.2008, ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A), JAL ANDHAR, WHO VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.12.2012, PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. NOW, THE REVENUE BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A), JALANDHAR, FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL. 4) AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF TH E ACT DATED 14.08.2008. 5 I.T.A. NO. 124(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 5) ON THE CONTRARY, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E RELIED UPON THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A), JALAND HAR, AND STATED THAT HE HAS FILED HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 17 TH AUGUST, 2013, THE SAME MAY BE CONSIDERED WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL FILED B Y THE REVENUE. HE REQUESTED THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE MAY BE DISMISSED. 6) WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH US, ESPECIALLY THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIO N FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AS WELL AS TH E IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. FO R THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, RELEVANT PORTION OF THE IMPUGNED ORDE R I.E. PARAS 10 TO 12 (PAGES 7 & 8) ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 10. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATTER AND F IND THAT ONCE AN OBJECTION TO VIOLATION AS PER STAMP DUTY AUTHORI TIES WAS MADE THE BEST COURSE WAS TO REFER THE PROPERTY FOR VALUATION WHICH IS DONE IN THIS CASE AT THE INSTANCE OF CIT(A). THE SALE VALUE TAKEN BY THE VALUATION CELL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS FOUND TO BE ACC EPTABLE TO ASSESSEE. THE ONLY DISPUTE LEFT IS THE OBJECTION OF ASSESSEE THAT THERE IS A REDUCTION BY 20% IN SALE VALUE BY THE VALUER AFTER CONSIDERING THE OBJECTION OF ASSESSEE UNDER FOLLOWING HEADS: (I) IRREGULAR SHAPE - 5% (II) NO APPROACH TO LAND - 10% (III) (CO-OWNERSHIP) UNDIVIDED SHARE - 5% 20% AND SINCE THERE WAS NO DISPUTE AS ON 01.04.1981 THE RE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ANY REDUCTION IN VALUE AS ON 01.04.1981. 6 I.T.A. NO. 124(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 11. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THIS ARGUMENTS AND FIND FROM THE VALUATION REPORT THAT ONLY 15% REDUCTION IS GIV EN BY THE V.O. ON ACCOUNT OF IRREGULAR SHAPE (5%) AND FOR NO APPROACH TO LAND(10%) AND THIS THE OBJECTION OF ASSESSEE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE A S IT HAS ALREADY BEEN TAKEN CARE OF DULY BY THE V.O. 12. IN VIEW OF THIS, I HEREBY ADOPT THE VALUE OF L AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS AS UNDER: (I) AS ON VALUE 01.04.1981 RS. 4,14,720/- (II) 31.03.2006 RS. 22,00,000/- THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO RECOMPUTED THE CAPITAL GAIN S TAKING INTO ACCOUNTS THE VALUES OF LAND AS ABOVE AND AFTER ALLO WING DUE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54EA OF IT ACT, AS ALREADY GIVEN IN THE ASSESSED ORDER. 7) IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION, WE ARE OF T HE VIEW THAT IT IS A MATTER OF RECORD THAT WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER PERUSED THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, HE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN RS. 31,62,000/- AS VALU E OF THE LAND FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 50(C) OF THE ACT WHEREAS THE ASS ESSEE HAS SHOWN THE SALE PRICE AT RS. 16 LACS. SIMILARLY, IN RESPECT OF COST OF ACQUISITION AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE, THE SAME W AS TAKEN AT RS. 2,17,500/- INDEXED TO 10,80,975/- BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HE CALCULATED THE CAPITAL GAINS AT RS. 20,81,025/-. AF TER ALLOWING AN AMOUNT OF RS. 5,50,000/- UNDER SECTION 54EA OF THE ACT NET CAPITAL GAINS WERE ASSESSED AT RS. 15,31,025 FOR THE REASONS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT 7 I.T.A. NO. 124(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 ORDER. AS PER THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISPUTED THE VALUE ASSESSED AT RS. 31,62,000/- FOR THE PURPOSE OF CHAR GING STAMP DUTY BY THE SUB-REGISTRAR, MUKERIAN. THE STAMP DUTY CHARGED IS AT A HIGHER VALUE IN COMPARISON TO MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND AND TWO TITL E DEEDS WERE FURNISHED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS IGNORED THE TI TLE DEEDS AND HAS MENTIONED IN PARAGRAPH 3 PAGE 5 OF THE ORDER THAT T HE SALE CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSE FOR DETERMINING LONG TERMS CAPITAL GAIN SHALL BE THE AMOUNT FOR WHICH STAMP DUTY IS CHARGED BY THE REGIS TERING AUTHORITY AND NOT THE CONSIDERATION MENTIONED IN THE BODY OF THE REGISTRATION DEED. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN REFER THE MATT ER TO THE VALUATION OFFICER AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50(C)2 OF THE ACT BUT HE FAILED TO CONSIDER THE VALUE ASSESSED AT RS. 31,62,000/- FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY AS SALE CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS PASSED THE ORDER AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND HAS MADE A REFERE NCE OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT WHILE HE IGNORED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C(2) OF THEACT, WHICH REQUIRED HIM TO REFER THE MATTER TO VALUATION OFFICER, WHENEVER THE ASSESSEE RAISES OBJECTIONS TO THE VALUE DETERM INED BY THE REGISTRATION AUTHORITY. IN THE WRITTEN ARGUMENTS BEFORE US, LEAR NED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS OF HON'BLE HIGH COURTS, WHICH ARE AS UNDER: 8 I.T.A. NO. 124(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 1. THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT HAS HELD IN THE CASE OF CIT FARIDABAD VS. SMT. SHWETA BUNCHAR, 192 TAXMAN 6 7 (2010) THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY ANY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY IN RESPECT OF LAND OR BUILDING AT THE TIME OF EXECUTION OF THE TRANSFER DEED CANNOT BE TAKEN AS SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 48 OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS HELD THA T NO ADDITIONS COULD HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER MEREL Y BECAUSE THE STATE GOVERNMENT ASSESSED THE PRICE OF THE PROPERTY AT A MUCH HIGHER VALUE FOR THE PURPOSES OF PAYMENT OF STAMP D UTY. 2. THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NEW K ALINDI KAMAVATI CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. VS. STATE OF G UJARAT & ORS. (2006)(2) GUJ. L.R. VOL XLVII(2) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE VALUATION ADOPTED BY THE STAMP AUTHORIZES CANNOT BE CONSIDERE D CONCLUSIVE. THE COURT WHILE OBSERVING THAT : SOLE RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON JANTRI DY. COLLECTOR FOR DETERMINATION OF MARKET VALUE OF STAMP DUTY HELD THAT JANTRI : I.E. MARKET VALUATION REC ORD BOOK MAINTAINED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITIES REFLE CTS PROBABLE MARKET VALUE AND THE SAME WAS NOT A CONCLUSIVE EVID ENCE. 3. ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE MATTER OF DINESH KUMAR MITTAL VS. ITRO & ORS., 193 ITR 770(ALL) HAS OBSERVED : WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT WE CANNOT RECOGNIZE ANY RULE OF LAW TO THE EFFECT THAT THE VALUE DETERMINED FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY IS THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION PASSING BETWEEN THE PARTIES TO A SALE . THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION MAY BE MORE OR MAY BE LESS. WHAT IS T HE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION THAT PASSED BETWEEN THE PARTIES IS A QUESTION OF FACT TO BE DETERMINED IN EACH CASE HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 4. MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN MOTORS L TD. VS. MEMBERS, APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY, (2001) 249 ITR 424 (MAD.) WHILE DEALING WITH THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER XX-C O F THE INCOME TAX ACT HAS OBSERVED : GUIDELINE VALUES ARE FIXED BY REGISTERING AUTHORITIES FOR PURPOSES OF COLLECTION OF STAMP DUT Y AND THEREFORE, THOSE GUIDELINES CAN HAVE NO APPLICATION FOR DETERM INED MARKET VALUE UNDER CHAPTER XX-C. VALUATION DEPENDS ON THE LOCATION OF PROPERTY, THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE PROPERTY IS USE D, THE 9 I.T.A. NO. 124(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 NATURE OF THE PROPERTY, AND THE TIME WHEN THE AGREE MENT IS ENTERED INTO AND SIMILAR OTHER OBJECTIVE FACTORS. THE VALUATION THEREFORE HAS TO BE DONE BY A METHOD, WHICH IS MORE OBJECTIVE AND CAN FURNISH RELIABLE DATE TO ARRIVE AT A JUST CONCL USION. THE MARKET RATES NOTIFIED BY THE SUB REGISTRAR FOR THE PURPOSE OF REGISTRATION CANNOT BE PROPER GUIDE FOR VALUATION IN RESPECT OF PRE-EMPTIVE PURCHASE. 5. THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT HAS HELD IN THE CASE OF N. MEENAKSHI VS. ASSISTANT CIT 30 DTR (MAD.), (2009) F OR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING CAPITAL GAIN, THE VALUATION MA DE FOR CHARGING STAMP DUTY CANT BE ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMP UTING CAPITAL GAIN UNDER SECTION 48. 6. THE HON'BLE I.T.A.T. JODHPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF M RS. MANJULA SINGHAL VS ITO (2011) 142 TTJ (JAL) 511 HAS HELD VA LUE ADOPTED BY VALUATION AUTHORITIES FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSES CA NT BE CONSIDERED AS SALE CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSES S ECTION 48 OF INCOME TAX ACT. 8) LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT THE AFO RESAID FACTS IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF LEARNED CIT(A) AND LEARNED CIT(A) DIRECTED THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, DASUYA TO MAKE A REFERENCE TO V ALUATION OFFICER TO ASCERTAIN THE F.M.V. AS ON 01.04.1981 AS PER PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 55A OF THE ACT AND REFER THE VALUATION OF THE SALE DATE TO VALUATION OFFICER UNDER SECTION 50C(2) OF THE ACT. THE THE VALUATION OFFIC ER DETERMINED THE VALUES AS UNDER: PARTICULARS AMOUNT VALUE AS ON AM OUNT 31.03.2006 (DATE OF SALE) VALUE AS ON 4,14,720/- 01.04.1981 (RS. 2592/- 22 LAC RS. 13750/- P ER MARLA 10 I.T.A. NO. 124(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 PER MARLA) HE HAS TAKEN VALUE OF THE LAND AS PER CHARGES AND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY AT RS. 27,50,000/- PER ACRE AND HAS GIVEN THE DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE FOLLOWING:- LESS FOR DEFICIENCIES/ SHORT COMINGS OF THE LAND 1. IRREGULAR SHAPE : 5.00% 2. NO APPROACH TO LAND : 10.00% 3. CO-OWNERSHIP/ UNDIVIDED SHARE : 5.00% TOTAL : 20.00% (-) 5,50,000.00 NET RATE OF LAND/ACRE : RS. 22,00,000.00 F.M.V. OF LAND : RS. 22,00,000.00 PER ACRE RATE OF LAND PER MARLA : 22,00,000.00/160 MARL A RS. 13,750.00 THE VALUATION OFFICER HAS DETERMINED THE F.M.V. VAL UE OF LAND AT VILLAGE FATTOWAL, MUKERIAN AS ON 01.04.1981 AS FOLL OWS:- (I) AS PER REGD. DEED DT. 27.02.1981 : RS. 3600.00 PE R MARLA (II) AS PER REGD. DEED NO. 2225 (III) DT. 10.03.1981 : RS. 2500.00 PER MARLA (IV) (AS PER INFORMATION GIVEN BY (V) TEHSILDAR, MUKERIAN DISTT. HSP) AVERAGE RATE : 3600 + 2500 ----------------- =RS. 3050.00 PER MARLA 2 LESS DEFICIENCIES IN THE LAND 1. IRREGULAR SHAPE OF LAND = 5% 11 I.T.A. NO. 124(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 2. NO APPROACH TO LAND = 10% TOTAL PERCENTAGE OF DEFICIENCIES = 15% 458.00 NET RATE/ PER MARLA = RS. 2592.00 RATE OF LAND FOR 160 MARLAS = 160X2592.00 = RS. 414720.00 9) THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED OBJECTIONS TO THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE VALUATION OFFICER BY LETTER DATED AUGUST 22, 20 12 WHICH ARE AS UNDER: 1. PLEASE REFER TO YOUR REPORT DATED 17.08.2012 RECEIV ED TODAY DETERMINED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF 160 MARLAS AGRI CULTURAL LAND AT VILLAGE FATHOWAL NEAR MUKERIAN DISTT. HOSHIARPUR . IN VALUATION AS ON 01.04.1981. YOU HAVE DEDUCTED 5% ON ACCOUNT O F IRREGULAR SHAPE OF LAND AND 10% ON ACCOUNT OF NO APPROACH TO LAND FROM THE AVERAGE RATE OF LAND AS ON 01.04.1981. THIS IS TO I NFORM YOU THAT THIS IS AN ANCESTRAL LAND OF 10 ACRES ACQUIRED IN 1 970S. THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD 160 MARLAS OF LAND ON 31.03.2006 OUT OF HIS SHARE OF LAND. HIS SHARE WAS 1/3 RD OF THE TOTAL AREA OF 10 ACRES OF LAND. SO, FOR DETERMINING FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 0 1.04.1981, NO DEDUCTION CAN BE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF IRREGULAR SHAP E AND NON- APPROACH TO LAND, BECAUSE AT THAT TIME THE LAND WA S IN TOTO 10 ACRES AND THERE WAS NO DISPUTE BETWEEN CO-OWNERS. THE DIS PUTE HAS ARISEN VERY LATE IN 1994 WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS TO B E DISTRIBUTED. SO, FOR DETERMINING FAIR MARKET VALUE OF LAND AS ON 01.04.1981, NO SUCH DEDUCTION IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS INFORMED YOU VIDE LETTER DATED JUL Y 24, 2012 THAT THERE WAS A DISPUTE BETWEEN CO-OWNERS SINCE 1994 IN VARIOUS COURTS AND THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD THE SAME UNDER COM PELLING CIRCUMSTANCES AT A PRICE, IT COULD BEST FETCH IN TH E MARKET. SO, THE DEDUCTION ALLOWED BY YOU @ 20% FROM REVENUE RECORDS RATES IS ON THE LOWER SIDE. YOU ARE REQUESTED TO ALLOW FURTHER DEDUCTION IN THIS REGARD. AS A MATTER OF FACT, IN SPITE OF BEST POSSI BLE EFFORTS OF THE ASSESSEE, IT COULD GET RS. 16 LACS FOR 160 MARLAS O F LAND. 12 I.T.A. NO. 124(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 10) THE ASSESSEE FURTHER POINTED OUT THE SAME FACTS B EFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) BUT THE CIT(A) RELYING UPON THE VALU ATION MADE BY THE VALUATION OFFICER DELETED THE ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS. 15,31,025/-. AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPORT OF ASSESSING OFFICER A ND COUNTER SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE ALONG WITH OTHER EVIDENCE P RODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE, LEARNED CIT(A) FINALLY ACCEPTED THE SALE VALUE TAKEN BY THE VALUATION CELL OF THE DEPARTMENT WHICH IS ALSO ACCE PTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE BUT HAS NOT GIVEN ANY DEDUCTION AS REQUESTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HE ADOPTED THE VALUE OF LAND AS ON 01.04.1981 AT RS. 4 ,14,720/- AND ON 31.03.2006 AT RS. 22,00,000/-. LEARNED CIT(A) DIREC TED THE ASSESSING OFFICE TO RE-COMPUTE THE CAPITAL GAINS TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE VALUES OF LAND AS ABOVE AND AFTER ALLOWING DUE DEDUCTION UNDE R SECTION 54EA OF THE ACT AND PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 11) KEEPING IN VIEW THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS PASS ED A WELL REASONED ORDER; THEREFORE, NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR. AC CORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.12.2012 PASSED BY LEARNED C IT(A), JALANDHAR, AND DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. 13 I.T.A. NO. 124(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 12) IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH AUGUST, 2013 SD/./- SD/./- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 30 TH AUGUST, 2013 /RK/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: JATINDER KUMAR L/H SH. RAM KUMAR, C/ O- M/S BHARAT MOTOR, G.T ROAD, MUKERIAN, DISTT. HOSHIARPUR 2. ITO, DASUYA 3. THE CIT(A), JALANDHAR 4. THE CIT, JALANDHAR 5. THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., AMRITSAR TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.